La Prensa is doing a series of interviews of people who have declared their interest in running for President in November 2021. Arturo Cruz has an interesting background: his father, also Arturo Cruz, was one of the members of the Junta del Gobierno after the triumph of the revolution in 1979, and then became one of the key Contra civilian leaders. Meanwhile, his son (the subject of this interview) first gained fame for dating Fawn Hall, Oliver North´s secretary at the time of the Iran Contra scandal. He then went on to get a doctorate in Modern History from Oxford. In 2007 he was named by Ortega to be the Nicaraguan Ambassador to the US, a post he kept for two years. After resigning he returned to his teaching position at INCAE. He is considered to be a savvy political analyst by the traditional elite in the country, and as the article suggests, maintains important contacts within the US political class.
Arturo Cruz: “A civilized country cannot have political prisoners”
By Leonor Álvarez en La Prensa, April 9, 2021
The presidential pre-candidate Arturo Cruz promises to free the political prisoners the first day of his government. He has hopes for the Renacer Law proposed by US Senators to pressure the regime.
Arturo Cruz Sequiera recognizes that since he announced his candidacy for the presidency this past March 2, his daily routine has drastically changed, since that day he has police following him everywhere and they stay in front of his home when he arrives, they watch him 24 hours a day.
He is temporarily disconnected from teaching, and now he remains more attentive to what they are saying and not saying about him in the communications media as well as on social networks. At this point he has lost count of the number of interviews he has granted.
Nevertheless, he states that he is completely convinced that he made the right decision. The only thing he regrets is that fact that he no longer has time to read a good book, as he did prior to entering the “minefield” of Nicaraguan politics.
Cruz revealed in this conversation with La Prensa the level of participation that he had in the negotiations to bring about the visits of the US diplomats in the midst of the crisis of 2018. He said that he put his greatest energy into the visit of Caleb McCarry in June 2018, an official of the professional team of Senator Bob Corker, at that time the president of the powerful Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate. He stated in addition that in the visit of the delegation led by Ambassador Michael McKinley and Julie Chung in January 2019, he did not get very involved because he was then skeptical about the openness of Daniel Ortega to dialogue.
Currently Chung is interim Sub secretary of the Western Hemispheric Affairs Office of the State Department of the US.
His appraisal is that international pressure has lost interest for Nicaraguans because of its diminishing returns, but he stated that with the new initiative of the Renacer Law things could change because of the “teeth” in that law.
Cruz, 67 years old, has left his sympathies more than clear for the Citizens for Liberty Party (CxL), which Kitty Monterrey leads, and which forms part of the Citizen Alliance opposition block. He also already took a step for his possible registration in the process for the selection of the sole presidential candidate in that unitarian platform, with a view to participating in the general elections on Sunday November 7, but only if there are guarantees for a fair and transparent electoral process.
Why after being out of the public eye, in academia, you feel the need to appear as an aspiring presidential candidate?
When the legitimate social explosion of April 2018 happened, I realized that it was important to be in public life and I began to do so gradually, in a quiet way, trying to be effective in the measures that I took to create the conditions for a legitimate, transparent electoral outcome, with reforms, which would truly avoid greater decomposition in terms of lives, in terms of the development of the country, on the issue of the patrimony of Nicaraguans. It was based on that moment that I began to take a more activist attitude, always with the required prudence, trying to be the most effective possible. And there was a moment in which I felt that I had to raise my profile and that I had to get into the debate, above all because I think that there are moments in which a person can have an impact on the life of a country, I made that decision from there and I made it aware of what it would mean.
You said in the presentation of your book that many times students and former students had proposed that you run for the Presidency. Who convinced you?
What I said in one sense, that in previous years, when I was a professor, the students would say to me, “Professor, have you not considered entering politics as a candidate?” And my response was always, “I prefer to continue to dedicate myself to academic life.” As the political situation became more complex, those voices began to get louder. But in addition to this, other sectors of society, from religious life, academic life, business life, in other civil society bodies, began to talk about the fact that I should have a more significant attitude, and I began to discuss these issues with political society; and there was a moment in which it seemed to me that it was the moment to do so and I did it. I have been in this matter a month, and it has been an intense month, I think that it has been the most intense month of my life, and I do not regretting having done so. I feel a sense of obligation. I feel committed to this process.
Are there groups from big capital of Nicaragua backing your candidacy?
I do not know what you mean by big capital. I know that there is big capital that on occasions have diverse interests, you cannot say that there is a homogeneous position in that sense. I can even tell you that I have felt more support from other bodies than necessarily from what can be called big capital. This does not mean that there are no big, small, medium capital who feel comfortable with my electoral position.
What I am asking you is whether there are important business people backing your pre-candidacy: What would the response be? Yes or no?
They could have some sympathy, but that does not mean that they support it in a tangible way, but clear sympathy, a lot of people have it, as they have for other candidates.
Do they back your candidacy?
Tangibly it would be worthwhile to look at these issues later on, but for now there is sympathy, that does not necessarily translate into tangible resources. I think that the business people of this country, with different forces, are awaiting to see how we end up with a united opposition, which is sensible. I think that when the moment arrives, they are going to make their decisions about whether they are going to tangibly support that candidate.
Relationship with the CxL Party
You were an advisor for the Citizens for Liberty Party (CxL). How did that agreement come about to name you as an advisor?
Basically, it is a decision that the members of the party made, inviting me to advise them, something that I did, and later they asked me to leave, precisely over an issue that has to do with the credibility of the party and that their registration process might have the breadth required. This happened in a moment in which they invited me, as well as Humberto Belli, Bosco Matamoros, and since I saw that it was an interesting group, it seemed good to be an advisor to them. In addition, remember that in 2019 at the end of the year, AMCHAM (American Chamber of Commerce) invited me to do a presentation. In that presentation I said that it was intelligent as a political option to choose an already established vehicle, because the idea to try to create a new political association in a context in which we live, seemed not very viable to me: that they would give electoral representation to an organization. So, since that first moment I insisted on the importance of a vehicle in which we might be able to create a unified force.
After that did they propose you to be their advisor?
No, months went by. I gave that presentation in AMCHAM, there were a lot of reactions to that, some very critical of course; afterwards, I went back to my personal political work, but with the low profile required, and it was not at that moment that they proposed it to me, they proposed it to me at another time.
Who proposed you?
Kitty Monterrey (president of the CxL) offered it to me, obviously with the backing of others. I want to say that my functionality in the advisor group was not very active either, but on some occasions I did have the opportunity to express my point of view.
What did your advice consist in?
Well, things that happen in the moment (for example): what do you think if we do this thing or that?…And I would give them input, they would make their decisions. And many times, we three advisors did not necessarily agree on the procedure of how to act, but there was a lot of respect, that is why I felt very comfortable in that group.
The “trauma” with the left.
You advised them to keep that attitude of not wanting to even talk with the groups that they called leftists?
In that sense, I never have been someone who did not feel comfortable with different groups. I am a great believer that every political society should agree on a vital center, that is why I have always insisted that stable political societies are those who have a tolerant democratic liberal right; and on the side of the left, a type of social democracy, tolerant democratic leftist center. The problem is when the left is on the extreme or the right is on the extreme; and it is a matter of creating a vital center, where we coincide on what is fundamental, and therefore, when the moment of governing arrives, having a type of leadership that facilitates you creating sustained economic development. When you have polarization: leftist destruction, hard right, basically what you have is destruction.
I ask you this because the CxL are seen to be reluctant to approach leftist groups.
Or the left is reluctant to get close to the right, and that is a problem that has to do with the historical hesitations of this country. You have to remember that there was a radical revolution here in the 80s, here there were confiscations, here thousands of Nicaraguans were jailed, there was 3,000% inflation, and complete annihilation of the private sector and so it left a type of trauma. Now, in the 90s a different process began, but there is no doubt that some reservations remained in terms of what the Sandinistas were, regardless of how they are called, which would create that animosity.
There is a fear of approaching leftist groups.
I think that there is a fear among all of us, that is indisputable.
Among groups on the right?
Among Nicaraguans as a society. There are very strong remnants here of polarization and to a certain extent I think that the great loser of the last 40 years of the history of Nicaragua is not Somocism, look at the paradox, it is Sandinism. Even more, in this new Nicaragua there is no greater burden that having had minimal collaboration, even though it be temporary with a Sandinista government. Paradoxically, having worked with a government of Somoza is not seen as so bad, that shows you the big reckoning, the disaster of the 80s. A disaster that led to the fact that our GDP per inhabitant in Nicaragua continues being the same as in 1977. Of course there is a lot of fear here.
I think that we have here a left that is beginning to evolve, but do not ask people who are on the other side that they accept that evolution so easily.
What is that left that is beginning to evolve?
I see some individuals. It still remains to be seen. Even, how they have reservations with their own name which they are changing?
Who?
Well, the MRS now calls themselves “Change” (Unamos), in other words, they no longer want to have the support of Sandinism.
Do you think that they are evolving?
I see some signs, regardless of the fact that many times they continue acting with the harshness of a leftist movement and pounding and wanting to impose their will that seems to me to be out of place, but my hope is that this society is evolving in a direction where we all might agree on a type of vital center, where you have parties who identify with what is fundamental. The success of Costa Rica, for example, for many years is that there was no polarization. What was the problem of El Salvador in another moment? It was the polarization. Even, the polarization many times lends itself to the fact that a dominant force emerges. And that is why it is important that we have parties that agree on what is essential. Up to a certain point I can believe that there should be an active public sphere, but without negating the private sphere. Let us hope that the left, that prefers a more active public sphere, now might recognize that without private enterprise there is no growth, no development, no jobs.
Do you think that an electoral option that only makes proposal from the right will win enough votes to win an election with the difficulties and traps that this electoral process presents? Because here the challenge is to excite people to go out to vote in the midst of all the adversities that the dictatorship is imposing.
Personally, I think that the left is very poor in terms of electoral representivity. This does not mean, nevertheless, that they cannot be part of a project of unity. The question is in what proportion of their relative weight. Also because I believe that it is important, from the optics of unity, not necessarily in electoral terms, but definitely I do believe that it is helpful to have a vehicle where there is space for different forces. Now, here comes the question, who is going to sit up front to drive the vehicle, who is in the back, who is in the trunk, and I think that that has to be in the representation of their electoral social body and their electoral potential.
What you are telling me is that the groups on the left do not have much electoral strength in Nicaragua.
I have my reservations. I do believe that if you ask me where the majority of Nicaraguan are, I would tell you that they are in what we could characterize as the right, because it is a more traditional society, and it has certain historical atavisms in terms of what we parties of the past represent, so, what exists is a disillusionment with leaders, but not necessarily with the electoral brand. In 2006 the electoral brand was the liberals, what happens is that they divided, but you add up the brand of the liberals and it was the dominant brand. When I have gone out to the countryside of this country, you feel that liberalism as a party and political ideology has a very big base, very rooted in rural Nicaraguan society, it is impressive. What happens is that there is a historical deception, for example, with the PLC, which completely disconnected from its base.
Why didn´t you sign the document United, Nicaragua First? You are the only pre-candidate who did not. Are you not thinking of supporting the sole candidate of the opposition if it is not you?
I feel very comfortable with the principles of the Commission (of Good Will). How am I going to be against unity, how am I going to be against the sole candidate? But let us be frank, I think that one of the problems of Nicaraguan society is that there is a great amount of distrust, and I am a great believer that we have to start from the premise and that I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the other, and I have always acted based on that. But I also received on the part of Don Fabio (Gadea) an insidious letter, and it did not keep me from creating that concern. So, I felt that there was a type of trap, a type of very obvious ambush in terms of my person. When I see those who are behind those people with honorable principles, there are some of them who have been incredibly, to put it in a polite way, hard with me, saying things to me that are insulting for me. I am a great believer that the discussion is about ideas, I do not personalize my differences, but when you now personalize, you now have to have your concerns.
It is because you do not have trust.
I start from the premise that you are coming here to have a genuine exchange with me, where you are not bringing a hidden agenda of wanting to destroy me or wanting to make me be seen in a bad light. But if I was in a situation where I know that those who are behind a commission – they have expressed it openly in their tweets years back, not yesterday, in a personal way – it is logical that I am going to have my reservations, that are confirmed with the letter of Don Fabio (Gadea), which was personal. I would have liked a letter where we discussed concepts. I felt obligated to respond to that letter. Since my time as a youth in Costa Rica in exile during the 80s I always had a great appreciation for Don Fabio and I lived with him in Costa Rica, we had a lot of experiences, consequently always my respect for him. It is that letter that has been the most difficult for me to respond to.
Why do you seem reluctant to approach the other politicians who are not from the Citizen Alliance? I ask you this because you did not want to meet with the Good Will Commission (CBV), nor with the other pre-candidates.
There is no doubt at all that they are compatriots and deserve all my respect. Now, at times I have to make certain decisions on the basis of a political calculation, which is legitimate, as they make their decisions on the basis of their political calculations, after all we are all in an electoral contest.
Because of a political calculation you did not accept meeting with the pre-candidates?
Not necessarily, I am telling you that one makes calculations in terms of time frames, but what I can tell you, and this is important that it be left clear: there cannot be calculations when the moment of unity arrives, we have to really resolve that. And I am a believer that we have the space to do that, and I think that without unity, politically speaking in an electoral context, we would be in a complex situation. I tell you that because I believe that the Nicaraguan society requires unity, because if we go to elections, regardless of whether they are even competitive, but we go divided, it is very probable that the abstention is going to be high.
There cannot be calculations when the historical period is that we all unite and that is when we are going to make our decisions. Even to say: I am not a valid contender, maybe it is someone else. That decision is fundamental.
And particularly why did not you meet with the presidential pre-candidates this past March 26th?
In part because may I had other commitments, and also it would be important to ask that of the other candidates. I remember that I proposed my interest to do so to them, but I already had a prior commitment. But it was not something transcendental for me, to go to take pictures in a hotel. This is a situation that for them was a serious situation of meeting and they had the time to do so
How do you think that a reconciliation can be achieved between the Citizen Alliance and the National Coalition in order to achieve an opposition unity?
In this moment the (National) Coalition is very much in disarray. The internal situation, the list of deputies that in the best of cases one could characterize as an eccentric exercise. But also, in conversations that I have had with some of its members they tell me that some of them are thinking that even with electoral reforms they should not participate in a contest where the regime is established, that first you have to get out from under the regime to then have the contest. I still do not believe that they have a strategic decision as the Coalition about what their line of action should be. Now, let them resolve their differences and let us look ahead to find a mechanism for convergence.
Political prisoners
There are those who say that you should not participate in elections with political prisoners, that first the dictatorship should be forced to free those 113 Nicaraguans. What do you think?
First of all, obviously you cannot have political prisoners in any country, under any circumstance, but if we go to elections with political prisoners, let us be clear about something, that the person who wins immediately has to free them on the next day. You have to have a sense of political intelligence, because, who does not want the political prisoners to be freed tomorrow? A civilized country cannot have political prisoners. If I get to be president of Nicaragua, the first day, I am going to be signing a decree of freedom of the prisoners before I even get to my desk. On the other hand, if we are going to wait for the regime to leave, it will be an experience maybe of many years, for now, nevertheless, you have to continue pressuring so that we have elections with credible reforms, and that is indispensable.
Now, if on the other hand, for some there is no sufficiently acceptable reform without the regime leaving the country, well we could pass many years in this situation. It could be that that inevitably happens, but for now let us try to have an intelligent electoral outcome for the country, the least bloody outcome possible for the country, the most peaceful one for the country, because this society is sincerely desirous of tranquility, a tranquility where there is no impunity, but nor is there revenge. That is why I believe in the importance of unity, because without unity it is also very difficult to win a super majority, which is necessary to change.
You have said that you lobbied with “discretion and prudence” to support a way out of the crisis in 2018. What were those efforts and what results did they have?
On a podcast on April 26, 2018 I spoke about the soft landing and what does a soft landing consist in? On two fundamental things: electoral reforms and early elections. What is talked about today? Electoral reforms. But in addition to this, I began to have [meetings] with other very relevant compatriots, very well known for many Nicaraguans, but with a lot of secrecy, they made the decision to push a process with the support of the international community, that would take this regime to a situation where they would have to move up elections and that they would have to provide competitive conditions. Unfortunately, it did not move forward, and I could not give you any explanation about why it did not work, but that was a supreme effort that was made and truly at one time we did have the hope that it could work and that it would have saved us from more death, more repression, unfortunately that did not happen, but that was its purpose.
In addition to the proposal, what efforts did you make?
It was a proposal that afterwards had a series of measures, initiatives, trips, resources, moving actors from different points and which was concretized in a series of initiatives.
One of the initiatives was the visit of Caleb McCarry?
Caleb McCarry, for example, who came to Nicaragua precisely for June 9, 10 and 11 of 2018, and it was a very interesting initiative because it had the support of the State Department (of the US), it had the support of the president of the Foreign Relations Commission, it had the support of the relevant actors of Nicaragua, who were in the opposition.
When he came to Nicaragua on June 9, by chance I was arriving with him on the plane, I got off and saw that there was a sea of journalists and they asked me, “What should we do?”. And that is when I said to them, an intelligent outcome would be early elections because that is what McCarry´s trip was about.
What was the meeting with McCarry intended to do?
He had instructions to talk, to collaborate with Laura (Dogu), who was the ambassador, and to meet with the church (Catholic), with members of the economic society, with the members of the (Civic) Alliance, and of course with the imperial family (Ortega-Murillo), as I call them, with whom I had meetings on three occasions and in those discussion there came a moment when Ortega communicated to Caleb that he was consenting, which does not mean that he was willing, but that he was consenting to discuss the issue of early elections.
Why did nothing positive result from that?
There is an endless discussion there, where there are different interpretations. I think that it was because one of the biggest problems at that time, the State Department was afraid of being seen as involved in a negotiation, and that is why in the end, and because of the reservations of other Nicaraguans of negotiating with a government that already had its hands bloodstained, this is a government without credibility in terms of its capacity to keep its word, and the process truly ended in a situation where he spent two nights in Nicaragua and decided to go back.
But still in January 2019 ambassador (Michael) McKinley came, which was the last great effort of US diplomacy to look at how to remove this regime through early and credible elections.
What happened after the trip of ambassador McKinley?
The reluctance of the regime to seek that path (electoral outcome) was left truly demonstrated, because ambassador McKinley on several occasions insisted on returning, but the doors in El Carmen were closed on him, and that is where one truly begins to ask oneself if there is a willingness and openness to a political outcome which in a past moment, I insist again, was for early elections and electoral reform.
Do you mean that the meeting with McCarry did not work because the United States did not want to negotiate?
No, just the opposite. The United States was in the best disposition, but they did not want to be the mediators, because I think that was one of the conditions that Ortega asked for: that the United States, understood as him (McCarry) and the ambassador, aligned in some way were like witnesses, in quotes, of the good will of a discussion between him and representatives of the opposition or of the Alliance. So, I think that the State Department, I have the impression, here I am speculating, that at that time was under the responsibility of (Francisco Luis) Palmieri, said: “No, wait, one thing is that Nicaraguans talk among themselves and another thing is that we be witnesses or mediators.” And I think that this contributed to the fact that the matter did not move forward, but maybe there was never good will on the part of the Government, what there was, was a situation of tactical positions to buy time. You have to remember that the so-called “Operation Cleanup” began in June.
So, of course, there were all those doubts, all those reservations, but obviously an effort had to be made. And obviously, to be frank, I think that my skills, my competitive advantage was more in these types of initiatives and I am telling you what I experienced, what I lived through, because Caleb stayed here just in the home of ambassador Laura Dogu, and on occasions I met with him, as I had conversations with religious society, business society and the Alliance itself. In other words, where we were talking about all these initiatives and thus able to really achieve something that could have taken us to a happy ending, unfortunately that did not happen.
What was the plan of Michael McKinley and Julie Chung?
They came along the same lines. I have the sensation that ambassador McKinley left that meeting with a lot of optimism. McKinley is an ambassador of enormous prestige in the United States, he is one of the few ambassadors who have a special rank. And of course, an ambassador of that category deserves all respect, but I never understood that optimism that he had on leaving that meeting. At that time, I was more crushed in the face of the reality that we were seeing and was more skeptical.
Why did that last meeting not have positive results either?
I do not know, because with all sincerity I did have pretty peripheral participation in that effort. I think that in the other effort I did have a more active role because I knew the actors. I obviously know who ambassador McKinley is, but I think that they wanted to manage this with much more reservation, in their initiative. What I can assure you, because I did have a little bit more of an active role in that, was in his insistence on returning and in the imperviousness of El Carmen to his return.
Can you point out the electoral reforms that you think would be sufficient to participate in a minimally fair and transparent electoral process?
I am a great believer in international and national observation, for me it is indisputable. I am talking about legitimate observation with the power of doing quick counts and the more international bodies that do quick count the better, because I think that that is going to provide confidence to many Nicaraguans assuming that we have that option of a unified vehicle, which is what is called the tactical vote. So, on the one hand you need to have the sense of the tactical vote, but you also need international observation because people are going to feel sure that their vote is going to count. There are other indisputable considerations, the depuration of the voting rolls, how the polling sites are going to be truly administered, things that are elemental. Obviously, I would like the electoral process to be more credible, more transparent. Even, certain representation in the Supreme Electoral Council is important, but a representation of decent people. But if you are going to replace two for another two as before, that does not make sense.
What happens if those conditions are not provided?
If these conditions are not provided – even freedom of movement – in this moment as a political society, as a movement, as a party, what do you do when there is no minimum? Would you participate in a fraud? It is pretty complicated. There are people who tell you that you have to participate because participating with strength and activism people are going to overwhelm the polling sites and then if there is fraud it is evident, and that then this society is going to create pressure, such demand, and the international community is going to be present. They can even create pressure on other entities of the Nicaraguan State. You have to go step by step.
Renacer Law
After all the attempts that have been made – and have failed – for Ortega to provide an electoral opening, what has to happen (on the national and international level) for that to happen?
I think that there is beginning to be a sensation among Nicaraguans about the fact that international pressure is relatively marginal, and I think that there is a weariness with that pressure, and it would seem above all, and I am going to use an expression that we use in economics, a [case of] diminishing returns. Nevertheless, I believe that with the Renacer Law there are some democratic efforts that did not exist before, and in addition to that, in concert with the rest of nations, with Europe and countries of Latin America, that are going to apply very strong pressure on the regime, and that definitely can bring additional advantages in a process of forcing an electoral opening. I think that this law is very interesting, and I think that we, now weary, are looking at it as something minor, but what paradox that the law has teeth, we are looking at it with a certain amount of distance. It is a law that has the consensus of the two parties and has senators of exceptional weight, that surely president (Joe) Biden is not going to ignore.
I am concerned about something, the speed with which the legislative process is going to move ahead on this issue in the United States. At first, I thought that it was going to go more quickly. I hope that I am mistaken, in the sense that I am not seeing that quickness. But if it does have the required speed, this is a bill that in a matter of two months could be signed by President Biden. And this law has to be studied in detail because it is very interesting.